[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Good points, constructively made.

On the general point on the accuracy of the figures I take on board. I think what you'd have to say in general is that there's certainly no statistical evidence there which would make you remove RS from humanities as a 'soft' subject.

On the Full Course/Short Course argument, almost everyone does 2 short courses to make their full RS GCSE these days. If you wanted to say they needed to discount the Full Course until it is improved that wouldn't bother me (we do 2 shorts anyway). But I would point out that English is lower still, and the government has already set in place a review of GCSEs to make sure they're equally difficult. Subsequently, I'd say just do the logical thing, stick in what should be in, and trust that the review does its job.

We're talking about a few years, and for the sake of what we agree are some pretty small differences, I wouldn't go taking out English now to put it back in 4 years' time. If they're not going to remove English for 4 years (they're not, and nor should they) it would be daft to not allow RS (both courses, as both are more difficult than English) in to the humanities pillar.

Steve W

Bit in bold, I was trying to point out that the study can't be relied on ...

From the study single award science should be considers more rigorous than double award, or separate sciences ... how could this be true?

Are you claiming that students should study RE but not English

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by kav

Thanks for the explanation Steve, I think I get it. Can you explain how that then ties into the Full RS course apparently being easier than the short course, if, in essence, the full course is just two short courses?

The only logical explanation is that the 'Full Course' in that study is the one with the final exam, not 2 short copurses, otherwise ther study makes no sense at all and would be contradictory.

The CEM are pretty serious academics, so I'm sure it's not the latter.

Steve W

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by gazbarber

From the study single award science should be considers more rigorous than double award, or separate sciences ... how could this be true?

As far as I'm aware, the single award is a dedicated single science which is usually studied for 3 hours a week. Double award isn't two sciences, it's three sciences, studied over 5 hours a week which is worth 2 GCSEs. 'Double' means the number of GCSEs you get, not the number of sciences you study.

Originally Posted by gazbarber

Are you claiming that students should study RE but not English

Absolutely not!

I'm just saying that, according to that study, English is 'easier' than all of the other studies we've mentioned. There are plenty of pretty logical possible reasons for this (like the fact that we spend all day speaking English).

Just to repeat, I think the E-Bac is broadly right. I still haven't completely made up my mind, but for now I'll go with this.

English language or literature
Maths, further maths or statistics
Any one science
Any language
Any humanity/art (from history, geography, RS, music, art, philosophy, economics, or classics).

I'd bring all other humanities and arts up to the same level and include them as soon as possible. Drama and Film Studies are not currently with it, and I can tell you why later, but they could easily be brought up to speed.

I'd consider splitting subjects so you could get a vocational version and an academic version, and only include the academic version in the E-Bac.

I'd definitely consider doing something similar to what they have in France, with two or three different types of Bac, and the above is just for while there's the one.

This is my 'post-one-bottle-of-wine-off-the-cuff' choice.

Steve W

[gazbarber]

OK, part 1 of my omni post

A) The study I referred to in my link/quote was from 2006, you showed one from 2008 (I didn't post a link to your resource ). The latter one claims grades/difficulty hasn't changed much since 2002 so I haven't revisited the 2006 study yet.

Originally Posted by gazbarber

Drama and PE are soft GCSE options - Article - TES Connect
John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "We have always known that some GCSEs are harder than others.

Proof or as good as it gets that not all GCSE's are of equivalent standard/difficulty.

B)

Originally Posted by Pecker

One last, and in bold for the hard of understanding:

RS SHORT COURSE IS MORE ACADEMICALLY DEMANDING THAN EITHER HISTORY OR GEOGRAPHY.

The INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION AGREES.

THE NAHT AGREES.

THE SSAT AGREES.

GOVE AGRESS!

You asked me before why these institutions could be biased.

Independent schools do better at both RS and (significantly better) RS short course than state schools, that covers number 1 and to some extent 3 (SSAT).

For 2 NAHT is going to voice its concern for two reasons, the now well known coordinated effort by RE teachers to rally/lobby head teachers. Secondly RE on average gives a better (ebac counted) grade than either Geography or History as previously shown.

As for Grove, as far as I know he provided rather standard political fob off answer, certainly nothing committal (unless you have a quote where he agrees RE is more academically demanding than the other two).

C) It is true RE does have a higher A*-C pass rate than either Geography or History, those are the ones that will count towards the ebac as already posted. The pure pass rate doesn't really come into, naughty as you know that not what we're talking about.

Originally Posted by Pecker

So, you've posted a link showing the pass rate for RS is lower than for history.

Which shows that RS is a 'soft' subject incomparison to history.



You really must try harder, Gaz.

D) RE in it's non compulsury form is no more popular than other topics, counter to a claim you make multiple times (depending on the short vs full course issue), all from official raw stats for 2010 GCSE's as posted previously.
2010:
188,704 pupils took RS GCSE
194,599 pupils took Geography
221,281 pupils took History

Including its somewhat compulsory short course option it is a very popular subject
468,658 (279,954 + 188,704) RS short course + full course.

Only English Lit: 513,523
English: 705,240
Maths: 762,792
Have a bigger uptake. I believe they are all compulsory? (and without the variant types the sciences have, each on their own being smaller than this)

If it was truly optional it would be extremely successful subject (although I'd only suspect this level of attendance in some sort of a religious state).

Specifically on the short course shenanigans:

I'm not sure I agree with your assumption that most RE is actually 2x short courses as that seems rather odd, can you confirm that for me?

Back when I was doing RE, the kids who weren't seen as being fit to do the full paper were made to do the short course exam, everyone had to do an RE exam in my school being a RC one (ages ago now though).

If the double short is done (seems rather strange to me) why would some schools teach full course and some teach 2x short and presumably a fair few exams are 1 x short where kids are put in for it anyway.
Additionally would this mean than 2 x short is a double count in the stats?

This peculiarity of RS exams is all very confusing

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Pecker

As far as I'm aware, the single award is a dedicated single science which is usually studied for 3 hours a week. Double award isn't two sciences, it's three sciences, studied over 5 hours a week which is worth 2 GCSEs. 'Double' means the number of GCSEs you get, not the number of sciences you study.

I can't possibly agree, the assumption your making is that a similar level/proportional amount of work is covered in single award compared to double ... ask a science teacher and see what they think, ask them to rank subjects in order of rigor:
Single Award
Double Award
Seperate sciences (which you handily dodged in your answer above ).

This would be purely a gut level view of a professional so might not be viewed in the same light as a study.

As much as you might like the study to support your view, I think anyone could rip it apart for a number of reasons an a bit of patients to read through it. This is statistics and the means of finding the results can skewed them and produce odd anomalies like RE (short) being more difficult than:
Maths
All sciences
as well as History and Geography etc.

The same report when talking about A-Levels also puts General Studies as the hardest by far subject, if that does not prove either:
A) There are some very odd results from the method used to derive results
B) The paper is totally worthless and discredited by its own results.
C) Somewhere in between, and we have to use or head rather than taking it at face value.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Pecker

As far as I'm aware, the NAHT, the SSAT, the ISA and the RSA are not calling for a GCSE in 'Interesting Flowers' to be included in the E-Bac. Nor are Interflora.

And the reason for that is they are probably not being lobbied by Interflora whereas they are by the RE/RS mob.

It's Rasczak on one side, and every educational body in the country on the other.

It's Rasczak and the UK Government actually! I would also point out, those content with the situation are almost certainly not lobbying on the subject. I have written one letter on the subject, whilst normally I would campaign at a much higher tempo. And I will certainly do this if RE/RS works it's way into the English Bacc.

Where have you got the daft idea that RS in the E-Bac would rob time from English, maths, science or languages? It would do none of these. It would not rob any time from history or geography for pupils who took those instead of RS, either.

And that is the key - inclusion of RS/RE would reduce the numbers taking History or Geography which is absolutely not what is needed. Inclusion of RE/RS in the English Bacc would be a huge backward step IMHO.

[Pecker]

Gaz, I'll try to cover that.

Firstly, I've never said every GCSE was absolutely identical in difficulty. Indeed, I think that would be impossible. The best we can hope for is to get as close as possible. In relation to the E-Bac, all of the current subjects in there and RS are of roughly the same ability. From that study it looks like they're all within a quarter of a grade of the '0' line, and I think most people would judge that that's maybe as about as accurate as you can get, given the huge difference in skills on offer.

Your point on why these organisations are plugging RS looks good at first, until you remember that study. Whilst RS full course is a quarter of a grade below the '0' line, look where art, PR and drama are. They're half a grade below, which is three quarters of a grade easier than history, geography or RS short course. So, if your assumption on their motives were correct, why aren't they pushing art, PR and drama?

Next, you say RE has a higher A*-C pass rate than either history or geography, but the link you posted earlier shows that it was a slightly higher pass rate than history, but slightly lower than geography, with not very much in it between the three - certainly not enough for heads to favour or campaign for one over the other. The link you posted showed them all within a couple of %, and that was just one year's results (they fluctuate every year).

Regarding the popularity of the course, I was quoting Gove's figures. If they're wrong have a word with him, not me. They're the reasons he's given for including geography and history but not RS. If your figures are correct, and at full course the three are all about level, then he's being completely disingenuous.

On the short course/full course, I'm pretty sure I've seen the figures somewhere - I'll have to have a look.

In a way it doesn't really matter. As we've seen, all four GCSES (history, geography, RS full, RS short) are clustered fairly closely within a quarter of a grade either way of the '0' line, and all are more difficult than English, which is definitely staying, so there's no reason to exclude RS based on that. To exclude RS full course on the grounds that it's marginally easier than history or geography when it's harder than English would be ridiculous.

Steve W

EDIT:

Just to pick you up one one point. You said:

Originally Posted by gazbarber

You asked me before why these institutions could be biased.

Independent schools do better at both RS and (significantly better) RS short course than state schools, that covers number 1 and to some extent 3 (SSAT).

Do you have any evidence that the gap between independent schools and state schools is wider at RS than at other subjects? If not then the point is pretty meaningless.

SW

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by gazbarber

I can't possibly agree, the assumption your making is that a similar level/proportional amount of work is covered in single award compared to double ... ask a science teacher and see what they think, ask them to rank subjects in order of rigor:
Single Award
Double Award
Seperate sciences (which you handily dodged in your answer above ).

My apologies, I read 'single award' as 'single science' - my mistake.

I can give you a couple of reasons single award might show up as harder.

1 - Very often, many schools will enter most pupils for double award, and save single award for less bright pupils. The pass rate would be far lower, I would imagine, which might affect some of the figures.

2 - Pupils entered for single award will be doing that as they have had to take at least one hour a week science, but their timetable is already crammed (possibly doing off-site vocational courses). They're doing science because they have to, and are being entered for the exam because it will up their points score no matter what they get. Subsequently, the single award may often not be taught with the rigour, or taken as seriously as double award. If I were HoD in that sort of situation I wouldn't have my best staff teaching single award.

Steve W

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

It's Rasczak and the UK Government actually!

1 - The government isn't an educational body, and Gove has little experience in the field. He didn't hold any post to do with education prior to 2007 and was only minister for 6 months when he chose what was in the E-Bac.

2 - At the moment Gove is considering subjects to add to the E-Bac in the 2011 tables, and has said this in specific relation to RS on two occasions, so even his support for the non-inclusion of RS doesn't appear to be rock solid.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

And that is the key - inclusion of RS/RE would reduce the numbers taking History or Geography which is absolutely not what is needed. Inclusion of RE/RS in the English Bacc would be a huge backward step IMHO.

According to Gaz's figures, the numbers taking RS (full course), geography and history is pretty equal. This is when they're all up against maybe a dozen other optional subjects. If we have just 3, 4 or 5 subjects in the E-Bac then numbers for all should increase, not decrease.

You and Gove appear (in the case of Gove possibly ‘appeared’) to be arguing "Well, if pupils refuse to take history or geography, then we're jolly well going to make them, whether they like it or not!"

I'm afraid that is an attitude that most people working in education, including most history and geography teachers, would despise. I suspect it would gain the support of only a tiny proportion of the populace, too.

Steve W

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by gazbarber

The same report when talking about A-Levels also puts General Studies as the hardest by far subject, if that does not prove either:
A) There are some very odd results from the method used to derive results
B) The paper is totally worthless and discredited by its own results.
C) Somewhere in between, and we have to use or head rather than taking it at face value.

Have you considered that there might be a 4th possibility?

I would suggest there is a sort of hegemony abroad about certain subjects - "Everyone knows subject X is a doss", etc.

In reality, the one thing I can tell you about teaching is that pupils learn better when they enjoy what they're doing. If you have a maths teacher who interests children then they'll learn better than if they have a maths teacher who makes the subject less than enjoyable.

Maybe RS GCSE and General Studies 'A' Level are genuinely interesting as subjects, and subsequently pupils get stuck into them more, and do better.

Rasczak has said that most of the skills in RS and history cross over. If that's the case, and we want pupils to develop those skills, and we know they're more likely to do this if they interested, well...

Steve W

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Maybe RS GCSE and General Studies 'A' Level are genuinely interesting as subjects, and subsequently pupils get stuck into them more, and do better.
Steve W

I can tell you now that from all the surveys and studies done on pupils attitudes to religion and religious studies, that is very unlikely to be the case.

Question	Yes	No
RE is boring	53%	29%
RE helps me find the rules to live by	14%	60%
RE helps me lead a better life	9%	68%
Studying the Bible is boring	63%	16%
RE helps me believe in God	11%	68%
I like to learn about God very much	10%	67%

- study by Dr Penny Jennings, a Research Associate at the Welsh National Centre for Religious Education.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Toko Black

I can tell you now that from all the surveys and studies done on pupils attitudes to religion and religious studies, that is very unlikely to be the case.

Question Yes No
1 RE is boring 53% 29%
2 RE helps me find the rules to live by 14% 60%
3 RE helps me lead a better life 9% 68%
4 Studying the Bible is boring 63% 16%
5 RE helps me believe in God 11% 68%
6 I like to learn about God very much 10% 67%

- study by Dr Penny Jennings, a Research Associate at the Welsh National Centre for Religious Education.

First of all, there's a massive problem with your link. Over half the respondents were in Year 9 and hadn't done any GCSE RS. Of those in Year 10, presumably half did RS for an hour a week non-exam. Subsequently, in answering a point about how interesting RS GCSE is, in a thread about whether the GCSE should be in the E-Bac, it's next to worthless.

Regarding 1, I think it's popular for most Year 9 & 10 pupils to say any subject is boring.

Regarding 2 and 3, again I think you'd find similar results if you asked about any subject.

Regarding 4, I think most Year 9 & 10 pupils would say studying Hamlet or calculus is boring, too.

Regarding 5, I'm glad at that, as that is most definitely not the point of RE.

Regarding 6, see above answers.

I think there are two important points to note here.

Firstly, unless pupils were asked at the same time if other subjects are boring the results are pretty meaningless. It's not impossible to imagine that if you asked the same pupils similar questions about history and geography that the answers would be similar.

Gaz has posted figures showing voluntary uptake of RS, history and geography at GCSE is very similar, which suggests the results for history and geography would be similar.

Secondly, that survey was of Year 9 & 10 pupils (13-15 years old). Huge alarm bells for anyone who knows about secondary school aged children. These are the two years where pupils are most disaffected about anything. Importantly, in Year 9 pupils haven't started a GCSE course, and in Year 10 they are nowhere near completing the course.

Wouldn't it be more interesting to see what pupils felt a few years after leaving school? The E-Bac isn't supposed to be about how much Year 9 pupils enjoy school, it's about the curriculum they're offered, andd how worthwhile their studies prove to be once they've left.

RE Matters - RE News item

80 per cent of respondents thought studying RE could promote better understanding of different religions and beliefs. This figure rose to 83 per cent amongst those who had studied RE at GCSE and was consistently higher for young women (85 per cent amongst the 19-21 year olds). There was notable support for this sentiment from all religions and beliefs, including 77 per cent of those who said they were atheists.

Full report here:

http://news.reonline.org.uk/pdf_lib/...vey_report.pdf



Ask a Year 9 or 10 pupil if school is interesting, or if any one subject is interesting, and I think we could all have guessed the results.

Ask people a few years after leaving school which experiences were useful, now that's far more helpful.

Steve W

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Pecker

The government isn't an educational body, and Gove has little experience in the field. He didn't hold any post to do with education prior to 2007 and was only minister for 6 months when he chose what was in the E-Bac.

A lack of educational experience is no issue whatsoever. All Ministers are advised by Civil Servants and, quite frankly, it often ends up better if they bring a fresh new lay perspective. Sometimes Public bodies drive themselves down rabbit holes and it needs someone senior and seperate to identify a gash course of action to remedy it. For example the number of children leaving school without foreign language skills needed to be arrested immediately. Gove took instant, remedial action and should be praised for his efforts.

At the moment Gove is considering subjects to add to the E-Bac in the 2011 tables, and has said this in specific relation to RS on two occasions, so even his support for the non-inclusion of RS doesn't appear to be rock solid.

...

You and Gove appear (in the case of Gove possibly ‘appeared’) to be arguing "Well, if pupils refuse to take history or geography, then we're jolly well going to make them, whether they like it or not!"

One day at a time Pecker. Even if RE/RS is announced for EBacc inclusion this year, the longer we can delay it the more chance schools will reconfigure to meet the increased demand for History and Geography. If Gove does review his decision to include RE/RS I will listen to his reasons and then decide if lobbying action is needed. At present though I am content with the status quo.

Originally Posted by Pecker

RE Matters - RE News item

Are we supposed to be surprised that a magazine called 'RE Matters' publishing an article telling us, well, RE matters? Even if it does - RE/RS is already compulsory - so why include it in the EBacc when it is already being taught at a sufficient level?

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

A lack of educational experience is no issue whatsoever.

Thanks for owning up to your point of view on that.

To me that attitude sums up everything that ever goes wrong with our education system. For me, what sort of secondary school system is up to the politicians (do we want more open options, etc). But to then dictate to the experts and head teachers which subjects count as humanities is absurd. Leaving RS out is like saying Spanish counts as a language but German doesn’t.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

Are we supposed to be surprised that a magazine called 'RE Matters' publishing an article telling us, well, RE matters?

The study TB linked to was published by an unbiased site, was it?

Secondary Pupil Survey



The fact is, it doesn't matter who published it, it's the methodology used.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

One day at a time Pecker. Even if RE/RS is announced for EBacc inclusion this year, the longer we can delay it the more chance schools will reconfigure to meet the increased demand for History and Geography. If Gove does review his decision to include RE/RS I will listen to his reasons and then decide if lobbying action is needed. At present though I am content with the status quo.

Reality check 1. Every school in the country knows that the results of both consultations (Department for Education and Education Select Committee) are due to complete their trawl for information soon (March and April respectively). If you think any school is going to sack or re-train anyone before the findings are released, you need your bumps feeling.

Reality check 2. If you think that, if Gove includes RS after these reviews, that (a) there will be any sort of noticeable compaign that comes anyone near the one we're seeing now to get it taken out again, you've totally lost it.

Reality check 3. Whatever campaign there was, if you think Gove would respond to it by removing RS, and flipping his position yet again...I just don't think you've thought this one through.

Steve W

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Pecker

To me that attitude sums up everything that ever goes wrong with our education system. For me, what sort of secondary school system is up to the politicians (do we want more open options, etc). But to then dictate to the experts and head teachers which subjects count as humanities is absurd. Leaving RS out is like saying Spanish counts as a language but German doesn’t.

The Government hasn't said RE/RS doesn't count as a humanity - it has said that is doesn't count towards the English Bacc. Huge difference. The Government has quite rightly highlighted core topics for inclusion in the education of most students and the crux of these have been included in the English Bacc. RE/RS wasn't included because it is already taught - and to include it would just be counter-productive as it would distract some from taking the more important options of History or Geography. GCSE RE/RS remains an option for students outside the English Bacc so it's not as if students can't choose it - but they must show they are broader than that to get the EBacc.

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by Pecker

The study TB linked to was published by an unbiased site, was it?

Secondary Pupil Survey



The fact is, it doesn't matter who published it, it's the methodology used.

Firstly that is not where I got the study info from. That's just another random site publishing the same data, an issue another member seemed unable to fathom and ended up in long drawn out disputes .... don't make the same mistake. The daily telegraph reprints an article from on online magazine which quotes a Russian diplomats book. Other news agencies reprint or reference original materials as do many independant sites.
Then when you cut and paste a particular data set or line out of a quote and search for it, you rarely end up with the original source, you end up with either the most linked to sites in order of importance (usually media sites) or those that last had activity if the original info was old.
I hope that helps explain the potential pit falls of trying to declare where and when someone 'got their data' and gives you the opertunity to avoid making the mistake again. Look to the information contained in any link and see if it attributes an original source or references an author. Look to see if the site is merely a report on an article or published data rather than the source of it.

Secondly the study was undertaken by a an RE based research centre if you paid attention - the bias was towards religion. (Dr Penny Jennings,Research Associate at the Welsh National Centre for Religious Education, University of Wales)
Thirdly, your links to sites and data are all RE online / RE research centres with and RE bias.

It would hardly be surprising that a bunch of RE teachers, students and accademics want to hear that RE is valuable.
When you ask pupils several years after studying, you are essentially asking adults who are more likely to give you an empathic response closer to what they expect you to want to hear than pupils at the age studying.
You will also see a higher number of pupils who attained a qualification in a subject state it's merits because they have a vested interest in those merits.

So, if you want to rubbish my data, make sure you don't completely mess up where the source is from a look daft, and make sure you understand how to examine the potential underlying psychological and emotional biases, the pit falls of statistics and the fundamentals of scientific methodology

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by Pecker

The study TB linked to was published by an unbiased site, was it?

Secondary Pupil Survey

I noticed it was on there as well. Can't say I noticed any actual 'link' given though.

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Pecker

I can give you a couple of reasons single award might show up as harder.

1 - Very often, many schools will enter most pupils for double award, and save single award for less bright pupils. The pass rate would be far lower, I would imagine, which might affect some of the figures.

2 - Pupils entered for single award will be doing that as they have had to take at least one hour a week science, but their timetable is already crammed (possibly doing off-site vocational courses). They're doing science because they have to, and are being entered for the exam because it will up their points score no matter what they get. Subsequently, the single award may often not be taught with the rigour, or taken as seriously as double award. If I were HoD in that sort of situation I wouldn't have my best staff teaching single award.

Steve W

Ah, finally hit the nail on the head! (I wanted you to discover it rather than present it).

The relative difficulty of courses uses a number of metrics, but basically its the one where people generally do less well in (genuinely academically difficult), combined with those subjects where a student has in general excelled elsewhere but doesn't do so well in (explained by crammed timetable and/or little support).

This study is not so much a subjective assertmeant difficult of subjects (from say professionals viewing subjects year on year), rather a statistical one based on the relative ranking of subjects.

Courses like Maths and Sciences are considered difficult because of the way the grades come out, they match a standard deviation curve quite well, other subjects award a lot of grades front up rather than both the mean and mode at the C grade level (both average grade overall and most people achieving that grade).

Courses like RS short are considered difficult just like General Studies at A-level as many schools put their kids in for it anyway, a free toss of the dice.

Without a full training course, often with teachers without passion for the subject, people who do well in taught subjects do less well here, especially on the knowledge portion or general exam prep for the subject.
This obviously makes the subject look very difficult (and in this context it is).
Students who don't do well overall are not likely to excel here and as we're agreed good English/essay skills are required (which these students will generally lack), so their is no flat-line in grades or unusual crossover of the able vs less able students.

So we can see that it is perfectly feasible to say that both RS short course and A Level general studies are 'hard' for many students, to call them rigorous or academically demanding would be a different matter (or at least thats my world view).

It also explains why RS full course, which does benefit from good teaching and exam prep etc does not feature as highly in the stats compared to say the STEM subjects (always considered as difficult and benefit from full teacher support), or others like music and French that are known to be difficult even in the case of a pupil having passion and teacher support (music).

Thats if we want rely on this piece of evidence.

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

I noticed it was on there as well. Can't say I noticed any actual 'link' given though.

It is at the bottom "Go to Dr Jennings full report as a "Word" document.", but here:
http://www.cornwallhumanists.org.uk/Pupils04.doc

Interesting that it is funded by

Originally Posted by the Website

The research was funded mainly by a British Academy grant, with personal research expenses in part self-funded, in part funded by a grant from the Bible Society.

They feel the need to say

Originally Posted by The study

Television viewing
Since research studies have identified correlations between high levels of television viewing and negative attitudes toward school, academic achievement, and moral issues, a question relating to television viewing was also included. Over half (53%) of the students watched television for less than 2 hours on the Wednesday before the survey, 19% more than 3 hours. Around one in five students may therefore acquire negative attitudes through high levels of television viewing.

Among a few other strange things, but at least they are up front.
The cynic in me thinks that they picked 'tame' student to answer the survey, but its pretty balanced from a quick scan with some figures that would make a biased report uncomfortable to print.

So a not wholly positive (quite negative in parts) report funded by people who would be considered to want to show RE is a positive light, suggests a robust report (on the surface of it).

God I'm turning into Stats and Reports boy (sad thing is I think I'm enjoying it!)

[Toko Black]

Maybe you can provide your own answers:

British Religion in Numbers (BRIN) database

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Reality check 2. If you think that, if Gove includes RS after these reviews, that (a) there will be any sort of noticeable compaign that comes anyone near the one we're seeing now to get it taken out again, you've totally lost it.

Reality check 3. Whatever campaign there was, if you think Gove would respond to it by removing RS, and flipping his position yet again...I just don't think you've thought this one through.

Steve W

I agree it will be far to politicaly difficult for him to change his mind about it, after the farce about school funding/building ect from last year, he and the government will not be very keen to repeat that.

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by gazbarber

God I'm turning into Stats and Reports boy (sad thing is I think I'm enjoying it!)

Be careful you don't end up like me and start upsetting people with facts. It starts with veryfiying the figures and doing the maths yourself and ends with realising most of our opinions on things are completely at odds with reality .... and you then can't help pointing that out to others regardless of whether they appreciate it or not

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Toko Black

Maybe you can provide your own answers:

British Religion in Numbers (BRIN) database

I wouldn't put any credence in that, I didn't tick a box to say what religion I support and what party i want to vote for, and my voter card was anonymous too so there is no way it could be linked back to the census form I filled in.

I'm baffled how the results came about, unless it was a totally unrelated (self selecting?) poll not based on census or voting behavior as much of the text suggests, but a random poll like we could stick on this forum.

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by gazbarber

I wouldn't put any credence in that, I didn't tick a box to say what religion I support and what party i want to vote for, and my voter card was anonymous too so there is no way it could be linked back to the census form I filled in.

I'm baffled how the results came about, unless it was a totally unrelated (self selecting?) poll not based on census or voting behavior as much of the text suggests, but a random poll like we could stick on this forum.

It's just a database run by the social change department at Manchester Uni tracking reports / trends and polls on beliefs, affiliations and beliefs.

Just a resource amongst many to start from as they hold data on the particular topic from other sources like the Gov's own British Attitude Surveys, Census data etc.

There will always be other data that isn't as well sourced or reliable, but then as you know, that's what we are here to weedle out

I merely pointed it out as a catalogue of reports where other sites get some of their own data from.
It may help Pecker and Sonic realising that google something in my post and deciding it comes from one of the first few links they find isn't necessarily factual.

PS: I can confirm that I did NOT get that report from the Cornwall Humanist Society or what ever link Pecker provided. So he was completely wrong in the first place.

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Pecker

EDIT:

Just to pick you up one one point. You said:

Do you have any evidence that the gap between independent schools and state schools is wider at RS than at other subjects? If not then the point is pretty meaningless.

SW

I had a look at the source of the summary paper posted:

http://www.cemcentre.org/attachments...2008report.pdf

There are some interesting revelations:
For one check out page 109, it shows which exams favor which type of schools.
RS Full and Short course are the 'private school subject' area if I can use such language.
This explains why the private sector heads want it to be in the ebac so desperately, it gives them a lead over the state schools.

pg 105 - 107 shows that RS full and short favors girls very highly.

So an all girls private school is going to push heavily for this subject to be in the ebac (in the cynical and all consuming world of league tables).

[IronGiant]

What is clear time and time again is that if someone quotes something as a "written in stone fact", from a second hand (as in not the original source) internet site, it opens you up for attack that the data is suspect.

You all do it and then attack each other for doing it. It would be funny if I was not equally guilty of using unchecked sources

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by IronGiant

What is clear time and time again is that if someone quotes something as a "written in stone fact", from a second hand (as in not the original source) internet site, it opens you up for attack that the data is suspect.

You all do it and then attack each other for doing it. It would be funny if I was not equally guilty of using unchecked sources

On more than one occastion people have accused others of getting their data from Site A purely because they managed to find a record of it there after a google search - then based their arguement about that data / the conclusions drawn from it from the quality or bias of Site A.

Also, some people quote Site B even though that is the only site containing that information and other sites contradict it. Site B also happens to be contructed, maintained and funded by Groups that Site B opinions support.

Pointing those out are fair comment.

Bias and propaganda are awash across the web and the media.
Agendas and political ideologies taint a considerable amount of what we consume.

It is fair to say that all published data can be suspect to some degree and a skeptical approach is healthy.
However, having the ability to keep relative perspective, scale and context is required to keep healthy skepticism from being destructrive denial.

It's the same with the idea of "written in stone facts". There aren't any in reality, but then in real terms there are within the context of human understanding.
It turns into a game of semantics that falls to pieces because of the lack of understanding and clarity between all parties.

It's like a scientist argueing with a creationist about the age of the earth.
The scientist says "look it's just a fact that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old" ... but another well meaning scientist will chip in and say "well it's not actually fact" .... which is technically correct, but certainly incredibly missleading and infact quite often counter productive.

We see the results in the arguements over Global Warming.

Therefore I would say that questioning sources and 'facts' is healthy as long as we keep some idea of perspective and don't make it appear that out right nonsense is equally suspect as data from third party where there a very minor questions of possible bias.

A bit like quoting two news paper articles and stating that the Guardian is as suspect as the Mail

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by Toko Black

It may help Pecker and Sonic realising that google something in my post and deciding it comes from one of the first few links they find isn't necessarily factual.

Good stuff. Perhaps you could point out how you did come by it then.

Quoting your sources is standard in papers. It allows others to check the source out, see if you have selectively quoted anything, see who commissioned the survey in the first place, then from that you can see if the information is valid. I had to do it all the time in my study for reasons like that. You see the problem?

Otherwise people will always be googling it anyway. Seeing as you're a humanist quoting from a humanist website.... obviously go with that and then give it little validity. And if it's given little value you've wasted your effort.

[krish]

World Service political discussion programme/podcast from today ...

BBC - Podcasts - Politics UK

Fri, 25 Feb 11
Duration: 27 mins

Doing God in education - how to please believers and non-believers, with Sheena McDonald

• play
• pause
• stop
• mute
• unmute
• max volume

• repeat
• repeat off

Update Required To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.

downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/politicsuk/politicsuk_20110225-0400a.mp3

Also airs at 12:32pm on BBC World Service ...

BBC - BBC World Service Programmes - Politics UK, 25/02/2011 'Doing God' in education
(BBC iPlayer - Politics UK: 25/02/2011 'Doing God' in education)

Does religion have a place in education? Multi-cultural Britain is also multi-faith, but Christian worship is still required in state schools. Is that fair? Some non-believers regard religion as superstitious clutter which should be kept out of schools altogether, but is non-belief neutral? And has the arrival of Muslim schools complicated the picture still further?

Sheena McDonald is joined by Baroness Julia Neuberger, a long-serving Liberal Democrat peer who sits on the cross-benches following her appointment as senior rabbi in the West London synagogue; Richard Swinburne, who is emeritus Nolloth professor of the philosophy of the Christian religion at Oxford University; Andrew Copson is Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association; and Ibrahim Lawson of the Association of Muslim Schools.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Toko Black

So, if you want to rubbish my data...

I didn't.

Steve W